Letters to the Editor: June 25, 2016

British Prime Minister David Cameron flanked by his wife Samantha speaks to reporters after Britons voted narrowly to leave the European Union. He plans to quit as PM in October. ODD ANDERSEN / AFP/Getty Images

Referendum ill-advised

As the “pro-Brexit” result of the vote on EU membership became more and more clear over the course of Friday, I hope that British Prime Minister David Cameron came finally to the stunning realization of what a dreadful can of worms he opened when he promised this referendum.

His country is now more deeply divided than ever by the nasty and persistent issues of class, region and national identity, The United Kingdom has come out of this experience united in name only, and faces years of instability as it resolves its internal political struggles, copes with the economic consequences of its decision, and devolves itself from the intricate mechanisms of the European Union.

As well, existential issues such as Scottish independence, formerly put to rest, have been resurrected by this most unfortunate outcome, which seems to have been brought on chiefly by a xenophobic attitude toward immigration. Great Britain has just degenerated before our eyes back into “Little England,” to the detriment of itself and the world.

John Botari, Saskatoon

A slippery slope

Re: Choice, rights sought in assisted dying (June 22).

The idea of allowing people of good intention and freedom of conscience to decide what they will or will not do in a pluralistic system is a dangerous slippery slope.

There is only one health-care system. It is regulated by a set of laws meant to serve as our collective conscience and form a compromise of values. Medical professionals of all levels — doctors, nurses, support professionals — are required to provide service based on that standard. They don’t set the rules, they operate within them.

Where does freedom of conscience end? Would we allow someone who is stringent observer of the Sabbath to walk out of a surgery, or not begin one for fear that it may cross into the Sabbath? Would we allow nurses not to bathe patients because tenets of modesty that are foundational to their faith?

The signatories articulated that, “No health care professional or institution should be required to perform an act that violates the individual or collective conscience.” However, if a medical professional cannot act in accordance with the collective conscience known as the law of the land, perhaps that person should seek employment elsewhere.

Ari Avivi, Saskatoon

Please lighten up

Les MacPherson seems to be getting a lot of negative feedback in the letters to the editor column.

Do people not understand his column is meant to be mostly satirical? Honestly, I’d guess 90 per cent of the time he’s on the fence about which side to argue, until he comes up with some funny material.

News, for the most part, is depressing. I enjoy reading MacPherson’s funny takes because I understand that not everything he writes is meant to be taken seriously.

These days it seems everyone has something to complain about. My complaint would be about the excessive complaining. No matter what you do, someone is offended by it. It’s annoying.

So my suggestion is that readers take his column with a grain of salt. Go in there and read it, but, in the back of your mind, remember, “This is for my reading pleasure, not to be taken too seriously.”

If for some reason you still get offended, then don’t read his articles. Do your part to lower the ratio of negativity to positivity in our daily newspaper.

Todd Ginther, Saskatoon

Demand accountability

With the Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s debt clock making its national tour, Saskatchewan residents must ask themselves if we are OK with taking on massive amounts of debt for the profit of only a few giant multinational corporations?

And the Regina bypass stands to add $2 billion to our total debt load, whether it’s federally, provincially or municipally, while a select few land speculators are profiting. Meanwhile, other long-term landowners, some who have the same lands their great grandparents owned when they came to Canada in the early 1900s, are getting shafted by being forced to accept pennies on the dollar of their actual worth.

Why is the total population of Saskatchewan being held responsible for the long term debt of the bypass project? Taxpayers should demand an independent inquiry into the land dealings. After all, they are being held responsible for the debt.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

Postmedia is pleased to bring you a new commenting experience. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.